What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.

18

26%

There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.

18

26%

Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.

10

14%

I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.

jonesthecurl wrote:I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

jonesthecurl wrote:I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

jonesthecurl wrote:I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

He cannot, because the beliefs of young earthers require denying that anyone else has any true facts to back their ideas.

So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

crispybits wrote:

mejihn7779 wrote:I find it interesting that none of the supporters of evolution were willing to watch any more than 10 minutes of the videos. That's like listening to a hypothesis and saying it's wrong or useless before giving the person a chance to explain. I dare any of the evolution supporters to watch both the videos & refute all his evidence. I BET YOU CAN'T!

I'll tell you what - you watch this and refute every argument the presenters make, and I'll go back and watch the rest of your video and refute all the other claims, not just the one I've already refuted...

I don't generally have the time to go through hour long videos that meander through the topic with no real meat to them.

I don't often care to respond to shotgun posts where someone tries to make two dozen points (and makes them all badly) in the hope that either one of them sticks or the opponent will tire out in refutation.

Finally, there are some people on the internet who will never, ever, realize that they are wrong. Everyone else realizes that they are wrong, and that is the important thing.

The Jeff Dee and Russell Glasser show is about a couple of God hating atheist who have air time to express their opinions. That's neither science nor facts. It's simply what the majority of the people want to hear.

In a world turning away from God in the latter days, just as the bible had fore told it would thousands of years ago, everyone can be against God and everyone can and is wrong. Shows like theirs are the popular theme as is the fable of the theory of evolution. But the truth still remains whether the vast majority of the people believe it or not. The Holy Bible sure did nail this one right on the head!!!

3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. -2 Timothy 3:1-7

If Satan's plan is to destroy God's creation, then what better way than to get the creation to reject it's Creator?!

Satan must be laughing his ass off. Come the judgment, what will we do then? huh? I'd like to see if you scoff at God then with your silly TV show?

God will be just as God is just.

It is us who have the responsibility to look into a matter an search out the truth. It is our choice!

Viceroy63 wrote:The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

They did not have sophisticate language as we do. For example they had no word for "Cone" shape. So then they may in fact use the word "Pointy" Or "Circle." Why don't you prove to us that they had a word for Sphere and other complex geometric shapes 3,500 years ago.

They probably do now, but if you show me where they used the word Sphere in other text's of that time and place then I will gladly eat my own shite! =)

Last edited by Viceroy63 on Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

crispybits wrote:Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now

We know you love youtube Viceroy - sticking a video on there (without camera tricks) of you taking a dump and then eating it will be sufficient - thanks.

Last edited by crispybits on Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.

AndyDufresne wrote:Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.

--Andy

If Futurama was as funny as you and others' compilation, then I'd watch it more. Until then, there is no God.

mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

AndyDufresne wrote:Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.

Viceroy63 wrote:So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth,its inhabitants like grasshoppers,Who stretches out the heavens like a veiland spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,

The Very Bad KJB Translation wrote:It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Viceroy63 logic ... more of less ... "If I sit on the equator all the inhabitants of the earth look real small because I'm on the equator, which is a circle which proves people thought the earth is round in Isaiah's time."

In both cases it is clear that the KJB use of "circle" has nothing whatsoever to do with equator but with the "circle" that formed the sky. It should more correctly be termed a "vault."

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]The verbal form of the word basically means "to make a circle" or "to scribe a circle."

Job 26:10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness. [NRSV]Most modern translators agree that this "scribing a circle" in relation to the world refers to the horizon of the earth.

NIV: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.NLT: He created the horizon when he separated the waters; he set the boundary between day and night.GWT: He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.Ancient people were very good at observing the physical properties of the earth without necessarily understanding how all of those properties worked. The horizon of the earth is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area as an encompassing circle. This led ancient peoples to describe this "circle" or the horizon as the "edge" or "end" of the earth (Deut 13:7, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 28:24, Psa 48:10, etc.).

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

Ancient people of 2,000 or 1,000 BC did not have modern scientific knowledge. Yet they developed perceptions of the physical world based on observations. It was certainly not scientific but practical, based on what they could observe simply by looking at the earth and sky.

People of the Ancient Near East, as well as ancient Hebrews and Israelites, conceptualized the world as a large, flat, circular disk anchored in water below (the deep, Prov 8:27, Gen 1:2, 49:25, etc.) by pillars or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, Prov 8:29, etc.). Between the earth and this deep was Sheol, the place of the dead. -2- The earth was covered by a "firmament," conceived as a large solid upside down bowl or "dome" (Job 22:14, 37:18), in which the stars were placed (Gen 1:14-20). Above the dome was also water, which was the source of rain.

Gen 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.The dome had "doors" and "windows" to let the waters above fall to the earth (Gen 7:11, Isa 24:18, Mal 3:10, etc.). God was described as ruling the world from his throne above the dome (Psa 33, Psa 113:4-6, Matt 5:34, etc.).

These references are not just isolated anomalies amidst an otherwise scientific grasp of the world. These conceptions are pervasive throughout the biblical narratives, not only in describing the physical world, but extended into metaphorical applications relating to other topics or even simply as ways to talk about the world and God. For example, creation hymns (Psa 33, 104, Hab 3, etc.) evoke these images as a form of praise. Or in the Babel story God must "come down" to see the puny work of humanity (Gen 11:5).

While there are many graphic depictions of ancient cosmology, we need to keep in mind that this was not a pictorial conception, but a functional and descriptive one. It is we in the modern world who tend to want visual imagery and reduce ideas to graphics and charts. Yet for ancient people this was simply a way of expressing what they saw about the operation of the physical world.

Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration; see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses.

Viceroy63 wrote:The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

They did not have sophisticate language as we do. For example they had no word for "Cone" shape. So then they may in fact use the word "Pointy" Or "Circle." Why don't you prove to us that they had a word for Sphere and other complex geometric shapes 3,500 years ago.

They probably do now, but if you show me where they used the word Sphere in other text's of that time and place then I will gladly eat my own shite! =)

I find it funny that you consider sphere a complex geometric shape, when it is the most prevelant shape in the universe.

mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

Did you even read my post? Did you see where I refuted the very first argument he made? Do you understand English? Do you understaand that you're doing the equivalent of walking into a room where a long discussion about something has been going on for a long time and saying "I am right! All of you must stop everything and prove me wrong! NOW!"? Do you even understand how fricking arrogant that is? Put something into the conversation first, and then I'll give you something back...

mejihn7779 wrote:So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

Did you even read my post? Did you see where I refuted the very first argument he made? Do you understand English? Do you understaand that you're doing the equivalent of walking into a room where a long discussion about something has been going on for a long time and saying "I am right! All of you must stop everything and prove me wrong! NOW!"? Do you even understand how fricking arrogant that is? Put something into the conversation first, and then I'll give you something back...

All I am saying is that I will gladly watch your video & refute if you are willing to do the same for mine.

$58.27 for, "The Major Transitions in Evolution" by John Maynard Smith

$87.99 for, "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

$92.49 for, "Evolution" by Mark Ridley

Boy, what some people are willing to dish out for a lie?

If Dinosaurs were alive on the planet even up to a thousand or so years ago it would totally blow evolution right out of the water. Say if Dinosaur Blood were found inside of a fossilized bone? How could you then say it was millions of years old and still be fresh?

If there is evidence that proves that Dinosaurs have lived along side of us and perhaps still are would you be willing to examine it?

Well check this out, read all about it...

Ok then how do you explain the hundreds of documented photos and carvings and drawing of dinosaurs, other wise known as dragons through the earth in recent history when supposedly no one has seen a dinosaur in over 65,000,000 years?

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.-----

Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.----

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

[Could it simply be that the carbon dating method is also based on assumptions and providing us with false dates measuring in eons of time and what they are saying is millions of years old is probably only thousands if not simply hundreds of years old?]

Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years, around 1271 A.D. Upon his return from Asia, he reported of families raising dragons, yoking them to royal chariots for parades and special occasions, and using dragon parts for medicinal purposes. Interestingly, the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac are animals, eleven of which are everyday, extant creatures (rat, horse, dog, ox, rabbit, tiger, snake, ram, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig.) The twelfth is the dragon. Why would the Chinese include the “mythological” dragon with these common living animals? And we trust Marco for other history why not also dinosaurs or "Dragons"?

Viceroy63 wrote:If Dinosaurs were alive on the planet even up to a thousand or so years ago it would totally blow evolution right out of the water.

No it doesn't. That's a wonderful straw man covered in manure you have there. If you could find real evidence that dinosaurs were alive a thousand years ago then that would prove that somewhere, somehow, some survived.

Let's consider the horseshoe crab, who was around this planet some 450 million years ago and is still around today. Dinosaurs only appeared some 230 million years ago, so they lived before and after dinosaurs.

And do you know something really funny? If dinosaurs were alive on this planet one thousand years after Christ, you think someone would have made an accurate account of it?